Are people too dumb for Socionics?

[Adam Strange]

It's easy when you typing people by looking at pictures, right?

Hah! Hilarious, right?

I have this friend of mine who owns a medical diagnostics company. Hospitals send him images of biopsies, and he tells them whether the patients are diseased or not BY LOOKING AT PICTURES!!!!. Absolutely amazing. They pay him money for this. I have no idea how he gets away with it.

[Sol]

Welcome back sol.

When I get ban on socioforum or feel the aversion to its moderators' arbitrariness I come here.

I've made new typing test by IR based on my examples. Later will post its English version on this forum. One of problems - it needs >7 hours of testing. When you'll feel boredom in this autumn, then you'd could do it - your results are interesting due to your type is known to me.

[Myst]

That is not the same thing and not what I was referring to. Traits are empirical. Cognitive functions are not.

Big 5 - as far as it's really empirical, quite soft science tbh - is correlated with jungian dichotomies. Cognitive functions are MBTI and not Socionics, btw.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the load of silliness that's out there about VI. But faces and body language do show some things about internal mindsets etc.

[Skepsis]

Big 5 - as far as it's really empirical, quite soft science tbh - is correlated with jungian dichotomies. Cognitive functions are MBTI and not Socionics, btw.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the load of silliness that's out there about VI. But faces and body language do show some things about internal mindsets etc.

There is some correlation. They aren't very good correlations, imo, but they do exist, but they are relation to dichotomies, like you stated. Cognitive functions are implied by dichotomy results, which I'm surprised they don't receive the criticism by logical types that one would expect. Getting a result of ESFJ in no way indicates that you prefer FeSiNeTi, but that's a different discussion. The important thing to note is that the Big Five model cannot be used to justify the existence of cognitive functions and especially any physical manifestations predicted by their use. You may be able to visually tell if someone is open to experience or an extrovert, which imply they are likely an ENxx in MBTI. It doesn't follow that the openness to experience is a specific function that is being used. This is an apples to orange comparison. Cognitive functions are Jung's concept, which Socionics just calls information elements. Mostly these are the same thing.

It is not remotely obvious that I remain skeptical here.

[Aylen]

Hah! Hilarious, right?

I have this friend of mine who owns a medical diagnostics company. Hospitals send him images of biopsies, and he tells them whether the patients are diseased or not BY LOOKING AT PICTURES!!!!. Absolutely amazing. They pay him money for this. I have no idea how he gets away with it.

So is he a pathologist with a medical degree? Are you neglecting to give the whole story here? Are you comparing apples to elephants? Hit us with your facts.

[Exodus]

Hah! Hilarious, right?

I have this friend of mine who owns a medical diagnostics company. Hospitals send him images of biopsies, and he tells them whether the patients are diseased or not BY LOOKING AT PICTURES!!!!. Absolutely amazing. They pay him money for this. I have no idea how he gets away with it.

Personality is an internal reality, you need an "X-ray" to observe it. That X-ray is one's understanding of their motivations and internal psychological processes.

[Myst]

There is some correlation. They aren't very good correlations, imo, but they do exist, but they are relation to dichotomies, like you stated. Cognitive functions are implied by dichotomy results, which I'm surprised they don't receive the criticism by logical types that one would expect. Getting a result of ESFJ in no way indicates that you prefer FeSiNeTi, but that's a different discussion. The important thing to note is that the Big Five model cannot be used to justify the existence of cognitive functions and especially any physical manifestations predicted by their use. You may be able to visually tell if someone is open to experience or an extrovert, which imply they are likely an ENxx in MBTI. It doesn't follow that the openness to experience is a specific function that is being used. This is an apples to orange comparison. Cognitive functions are Jung's concept, which Socionics just calls information elements. Mostly these are the same thing.

It is not remotely obvious that I remain skeptical here.

They aren't bad correlations at all, but yeah. I don't see it as an apples to orange comparison, though. Again there are correlations here. But I agree that it's a bit more complex than ESFJ necessarily being that FeSiNeTi thing. Beyond having to assume an entire function model for that, interpretation of each dichotomy may vary so it may not line up. (Btw, as for cognitive functions, or information elements, not the same thing and the difference does matter in some important ways.)

And well, as for criticism for these concepts and models, no I don't have scientific proof for these things, I just have my own mental and other experience of them. It's a bit different from what the common Socionics models would claim, though, I definitely don't take those models as is, I've criticized stuff enough before. Skepticism is totally OK...

So can I tell by VI if someone is say, Se base, yes, sometimes I can, when the look and body language is obviously matching the definitions for that - the person being very present here and being outwardly oriented instead of focusing inside and all this seeming natural for them, etc. Can I tell always by VI if someone is some type, no, nope and I don't even try. It's not always that simple with people, at least I personally know I can't read people that much in terms of what they are like that's not obviously shown.

[Adam Strange]

So is he a pathologist with a medical degree? Are you neglecting to give the whole story here? Are you comparing apples to elephants? Hit us with your facts.

I don't know exactly what he is, although I've toured his company. I pointedly try not to find out too much about his work or his qualifications, since I know him for non-work-related reasons. Similarly, he doesn't ask me too much about what I do to make money. I know that he has good taste in astronomical equipment, he was severely depressed for several years, a mutual friend of ours named his dog after him, and he is probably ENTj, or possibly INTp. Hard to tell.

Am I comparing apples to elephants? What do you think? What does your Ni see?

[Aylen]

I don't know exactly what he is, although I've toured his company. I pointedly try not to find out too much about his work or his qualifications, since I know him for non-work-related reasons. Similarly, he doesn't ask me too much about what I do to make money. I know that he has good taste in astronomical equipment, he was severely depressed for several years, a mutual friend of ours named his dog after him, and he is probably ENTj, or possibly INTp. Hard to tell.

Am I comparing apples to elephants? What do you think? What does your Ni see?

Ah, I imagine if he is being sent images to analyze biopsies. by hospitals, he didn't just take out an ad and put a sign on the door. Yes apples and elephants all thing considered but if you would like to look into what it takes to be a pathologist then perhaps you will see why I say this.

A pathologist is a medical doctor who studies blood, body fluids, organs and tissue to search for medical conditions and diagnose disease and illness. Pathologists use samples to perform a variety of diagnostic tests to reach a diagnosis and form a recommendation for treatment. Pathologists also interpret laboratory information to solve complex medical mysteries. They then provide the information to primary care physicians who advise the patient regarding treatment. Pathologists often work with other medical personnel and typically do not have direct contact with the patient. Pathologists also do postmortem examinations to determine the cause of death. Pathologists do scientific research into drugs and disease. Companies developing new drugs need pathologists to study the safety of the drugs [source: education-portal]. Here's how to become a pathologist.

1. Study biology and chemistry while in high school.
2. Earn a bachelor's degree. You should major in premedical studies, biology and chemistry.
3. Earn a master's degree in pathology, microbiology or biochemistry. This is an optional step, which would equip you to work in a laboratory or to assist a certified pathologist. If you're certain you want to be a pathologist yourself, you may want to go straight to medical school.
4. Attend medical school for four years and receive Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree.
5. Do a four-year residency, working in a hospital [source: WUSTL].
6. Get your certification. Medical pathologists must be licensed by their state to practice medicine and must be certified by the American Board of Pathology.
7. Seek employment. You can work in a hospital, clinic or laboratory, as well as in consulting etc. The field is wide open.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/how-t...athologist.htm

So if he is actually diagnosing disease, legally, it means he is also an MD and has years of training.

[Adam Strange]

Ah, I imagine if he is being sent images to analyze biopsies. by hospitals, he didn't just take out an ad and put a sign on the door. Yes apples and elephants all thing considered but if you would like to look into what it takes to be a pathologist then perhaps you will see why I say this.

So if he is actually diagnosing disease, legally, it means he is also an MD and has years of training.

Lol, I'm pretty sure what he is doing is legal. Although he did tell me his insurance rates are high, so "legal" but still risky.

Yeah, he has years of training. He worked in hospitals before his depression. He is probably an MD. He has an enormous house and no kids. But I basically just like him (except when he is being an inconsiderate asshole - not frequent, but it happens, and when I point it out, he stops) and his wife is a nice person. She is maybe ESI, maybe SEE. And what you posted is more than I want to know about his professional life.

[Skepsis]

They aren't bad correlations at all, but yeah. I don't see it as an apples to orange comparison, though. Again there are correlations here. But I agree that it's a bit more complex than ESFJ necessarily being that FeSiNeTi thing. Beyond having to assume an entire function model for that, interpretation of each dichotomy may vary so it may not line up. (Btw, as for cognitive functions, or information elements, not the same thing and the difference does matter in some important ways.)

And well, as for criticism for these concepts and models, no I don't have scientific proof for these things, I just have my own mental and other experience of them. It's a bit different from what the common Socionics models would claim, though, I definitely don't take those models as is, I've criticized stuff enough before. Skepticism is totally OK...

So can I tell by VI if someone is say, Se base, yes, sometimes I can, when the look and body language is obviously matching the definitions for that - the person being very present here and being outwardly oriented instead of focusing inside and all this seeming natural for them, etc. Can I tell always by VI if someone is some type, no, nope and I don't even try. It's not always that simple with people, at least I personally know I can't read people that much in terms of what they are like that's not obviously shown.

They seem to be describing the same concepts with slightly different terminology and models, but I cannot find any information that makes a cognitive functions distinctly different than an information element, as they both, in theory, are cognitive filters, or lenses that build a particular psyche. If you could elaborate or point me toward any such information, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Myst]

They seem to be describing the same concepts with slightly different terminology and models, but I cannot find any information that makes a cognitive functions distinctly different than an information element, as they both, in theory, are cognitive filters, or lenses that build a particular psyche. If you could elaborate or point me toward any such information, that would be greatly appreciated.

They are not describing the same concepts - some ideas are shared across these systems but there are some fundamental differences in definitions and in the models themselves. As for your question, an information element is a type of information. Some subscribe to the idea that they also exist as aspects of reality, but I personally think they are just aspects of the reality the mind creates by processing information. The mind processes information types by functions e.g. Leading function.

[Grendel]

There's no scientific evidence for Python or C#. Let's stop writing in Python and C#.

[ooo]

There's no scientific evidence for Python or C#. Let's stop writing in Python and C#.

I'm gonna requote this example forever, aha

[Tallmo]

In requires too much time and effort to learn. The theory itself is not that hard, its more about the hundreds or thousands of people that you have to observe to learn it properly.

People want some easy theory that explains what they identify with. But observing the IM structure requires practice.

Of course one can always do what MyersBriggs has done. Lots of tests and marketing, and many people getting the wrong type it but still liking it.

[aixelsyd]

I believe that the popularity of MBTI makes it hard for socionics to gain a foothold in the sphere of Western personality psychology. While MBTI and socionics shares extremely similar concepts and terminology, the two theories have fundamental contradictions, in the case of introverted types, anyway. Furthermore, socionics contains hypotheses considered too fringe for many, particularly visual identification. The idea of intertype relations--a core concept of socionics--is too absolute. These are a few reasons why socionics remains largely unknown in the West.

Socionics is not particularly difficult to gain understanding of, initially, but the theory is certainly more comprehensive than MBTI which takes a more malleable approach on Jung's psychological types. MBTI is largely open to interpretation and lacks the definiteness of socionics. While socionics suffers from a great degree of abstraction which results in wavering interpretation of the theory's manifestation, socionics has more of a correct or incorrect understanding.

I've been aware of this theory for well over a decade and have given it much thought and have taken faith in the reality of its constructs. Yet my understanding is imperfect, and the lens through which I see others and, moreso, myself has been prone to dramatic shifts over the years as my understanding shifts largely thanks to confirmation bias and the tricks it plays on one's mind.

In any case, I do not believe people are too dumb for socionics as much as a lot goes against the likelihood that socionics will be heard by others combined with the reality that without consensus on how socionics manifests due to the theory's nature. The truth is that, in spite of its complexities, socionics is hardly rocket science. It can be understood readily, as far as theory goes, but to actually see it play out in common interactions and in oneself can take many years, assuming there is enough truth in socionics for there be an opportunity to be observed in human interaction. After all, socionics, in the end, may be a theory and little else.

[Singu]

There is scientific evidence for Python and C#... it works as intended. Socionics makes many claims, such as that the brain is actually modeled after Model A and it can predict relationships.

[Number 9 large]

There's no scientific evidence for Python or C#. Let's stop writing in Python and C#.

python and c# is a language, it doesnt need scientific evidence to be useful. socionics is a descriptive ideology, that, like a religion, makes many claims based on nothing basically. a language doesnt make claims, therefore doesnt have to be scientific.

[Tigerfadder]

python and c# is a language, it doesnt need scientific evidence to be useful. socionics is a descriptive ideology, that, like a religion, makes many claims based on nothing basically. a language doesnt make claims, therefore doesnt have to be scientific.

If we should go down to what things are, Socionics is based on philosophy I guess. I bet extro/intro comes from Plato's Cave. There is a bunch of ideas that was made into what today is Socionics. It is a endever to reach some kind of truth of humans. But maybe it is like Sigmund Freud's theories, today outdated. Yet something really cool is going on here at socionics with spins, Gulenkos model G etc which is unlike anything other in this world. Also unlike religion and pseudoscience people here believe in both science and Socionics which made them not enemies. It is not one or the other.

[Number 9 large]

Theres tons of people who believe in science and religion/pseudoscience

[Tigerfadder]

Theres tons of people who believe in science and religion/pseudoscience

Its a good path

[Myst]

There's no scientific evidence for Python or C#. Let's stop writing in Python and C#.

There is, actually We know how a computer works and how it executes code written in these languages so that they work.

[ooo]

all sciences are part of our collective subconscious pplz, they're not real if we weren't here to experience this flow. Python is an idea as we are too, we're all decoding symbols, what's the proof you all exist and I'm not here alone? wake up, jee.

[Grendel]

There is, actually We know how a computer works and how it executes code written in these languages so that they work.

But is the language true?

[Number 9 large]

But is the language true?

language cant be true or false

[ooo]

episteme is both language and science

[Pallas]

There's no scientific evidence for Python or C#. Let's stop writing in Python and C#.

Binary and C++ ONLY

[Pallas]

I bet extro/intro comes from Plato's Cave.

Inhibition in man (as pathology). Inhibition occurs when, owing to the
establishment of peace and harmony, powerful instincts are prevented
from expressing themselves outwardly, and seek recourse by turning
inward in conjunction with the imagination. The urge toward hostility,
cruelty, revenge, and violence is reversed, “suppressed”; in the
thirst for knowledge there lurks both greed and desire for conquest;
in the artist, the suppressed powers of dissimulation and falsehood
are brought forth; the instincts are thus transformed into demons
which are battled, etc.

Want to understand Jung? Read German philosophers.

[Myst]

But is the language true?

True in what sense?

[Samson]

What is the difference between MBTI and Socionics in the public eye?

One; complexity. MBTI is easy to swallow, and even if the accuracy of its results are.. what they are, it fulfills its purpose. What is its purpose? I got this directly from the first page on the first website that came up on Google:

The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives.

Mission statement: understandable and useful. Recipe for success. Apple knew it too.

Two; Central representation.
The public in the Western world has to rely on descriptions scattered over the internet from schools that are clearly not based in the USA or Western Europe. There is a lack of a centralized organizational structure that focuses on the Western market. This isn't just a 'language barrier' either, this is a 'culture barrier.' This bias has been talked about a lot, but no real solution has been given.
Seriously, the only real representation Socionics here has are forums! They are about the worst representation for anything! No structure, no authority, no central definition to anything! People don't like to get behind what comes across as some rando forum lurker's opinion. The audience wants credentials. Certificates, official sounding organizations, the promise of self-improvement through a creamy ad and sleazy slogans!


Intelligence has very little to do with "audience." If you can't reach far with your model, then what you're lacking is marketing and a digestible format ("Learn Socionics in only 5 easy steps!") from a "trustworthy authority" (aka some clever loser who figured out a way to centralize it through business).


Basically, hire a publicity agency.

[Exodus]

In requires too much time and effort to learn. The theory itself is not that hard, its more about the hundreds or thousands of people that you have to observe to learn it properly.

People want some easy theory that explains what they identify with. But observing the IM structure requires practice.

Of course one can always do what MyersBriggs has done. Lots of tests and marketing, and many people getting the wrong type it but still liking it.

This is definitely a huge part of it too. You have to be both 1) somewhat intelligent and 2) motivated to put in the large amount of work it takes to understand the theory, especially if you don't have someone to type the people you know IRL for you.

[Exodus]

There's no scientific evidence for Python or C#. Let's stop writing in Python and C#.

This is a cute slogan, but socionics actually does make verifiable (or falsifiable, if you like) claims about reality. It's more than just a language.

[totalize]

I don't know about dumb, but socionics is probably insufficiently concrete.

[Number 9 large]

This is a cute slogan, but socionics actually does make verifiable (or falsifiable, if you like) claims about reality. It's more than just a language.

really? can u describe me some.

[Myst]

This is definitely a huge part of it too. You have to be both 1) somewhat intelligent and 2) motivated to put in the large amount of work it takes to understand the theory, especially if you don't have someone to type the people you know IRL for you.

This theory isn't actually complex. It's people that are complex so that's what takes time to understand and no one quite got it all down.

[Chae]

This theory isn't actually complex. It's people that are complex so that's what takes time to understand and no one quite got it all down.

Us NFs will join forces with you then. (I personally think people really aren't too difficult once you understand psychology & spirituality.) We have @thehotelambush's hidden personality X-Rays aka

[Exodus]

What is the difference between MBTI and Socionics in the public eye?

One; complexity. MBTI is easy to swallow, and even if the accuracy of its results are.. what they are, it fulfills its purpose. What is its purpose? I got this directly from the first page on the first website that came up on Google:

Mission statement: understandable and useful. Recipe for success. Apple knew it too.

Two; Central representation.
The public in the Western world has to rely on descriptions scattered over the internet from schools that are clearly not based in the USA or Western Europe. There is a lack of a centralized organizational structure that focuses on the Western market. This isn't just a 'language barrier' either, this is a 'culture barrier.' This bias has been talked about a lot, but no real solution has been given.
Seriously, the only real representation Socionics here has are forums! They are about the worst representation for anything! No structure, no authority, no central definition to anything! People don't like to get behind what comes across as some rando forum lurker's opinion. The audience wants credentials. Certificates, official sounding organizations, the promise of self-improvement through a creamy ad and sleazy slogans!


Intelligence has very little to do with "audience." If you can't reach far with your model, then what you're lacking is marketing and a digestible format ("Learn Socionics in only 5 easy steps!") from a "trustworthy authority" (aka some clever loser who figured out a way to centralize it through business).


Basically, hire a publicity agency.

These are roughly the "problems" that WSS is seeking to solve.

Not that I agree these problems should be solved at such an early stage in the development of the model. If they are we will most likely end up with an MBTI-like situation where the theory has been dumbed down beyond all recognition. And in fact it does seem to sort of be this way in the former Soviet Union, where people have established several "official" institutions that attempt to capitalize on socionics.

[Exodus]

really? can u describe me some.

That people have different allocations of cognitive resources for processing different categories of information, and they experience different levels of satisfaction from processing and optimizing each of these categories.

[Tigerfadder]

I mean, are people to dumb to see this things by themselves before learning socionics?

[Tigerfadder]

I mean humanity as a people are probably to stupid to get this thin that people are types. Obviously some people resemble each other.